* Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in> [2012-10-14 21:23:06]:
> Check for single step support before calling user_enable_single_step(),
> since user_enable_single_step() just BUG()s if support does not exist.
> Needed by ARM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in>
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 98256bc..db4e3ab 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1450,7 +1450,8 @@ static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe(unsigned long
> bp_vaddr, int *is_swbp)
>
> void __weak arch_uprobe_enable_step(struct arch_uprobe *arch)
> {
> - user_enable_single_step(current);
> + if (arch_has_single_step())
> + user_enable_single_step(current);
> }
>
> void __weak arch_uprobe_disable_step(struct arch_uprobe *arch)
This change is fine. But I am wondering if should have a dummy
arch_uprobe_enable_step / arch_uprobe_disable_step in uprobes ARM.
If arch_uprobe_enable_step() wasnt a weak function, then the fix you
suggested would have been the only way to go.
Again, I am not against this change. But I am hoping that we get
feedback on which option is prefered, having this check or having a
dummy function in archs like ARM.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
